For once, I agree with my beloved buddy Rolex. 

Deviation is the norm, balance is the exception.

Other than what the common experience dictates, many brilliant works demonstrated it.
Anyway, imho, roulette is totally unbeatable.


as.   

Hi rouletta.

To constantly win at baccarat we must study and register what happens in the long run because things aren't proportionally placed (the 50.68-49.32 probability is a long term finding)

At roulette we cannot benefit of this luxury, any spin is totally independent from the previous one and long term results confirm this (any hand follows its mathematical expectancy).

Imo at roulette the only thing we can do, other than staying very far from it, is trying to get an advantage on small betting cycles, that is to admit that some spins' sequences are not perfectly random produced.
In a word, betting that some observed events will be more likely in the close future than their counterpart not having show up so far. That is preferring to bet on what just happened opposed to chase what never happened. Well knowing that in the long run everything will be perfectly balanced.
Adopting this line of thought, your super limited observations seem to be somewhat interesting.

as.       
     



 




 

gr8player, I'm wondering what we could do sharing our ideas... 


as.




 

Interesting post.


as. 

Practically, your system dictates that the ">4->4->4" streaks' sequence will show up in a  proportionally smaller amount than the other 7 occurences.
More precisely, it seems you think that the sequence >4 - >4 - 4 is more prevalent than the counterpart >4->4->4, because it's the spot you bet the most.

Even if it's true that over the long run 4 streaks are slight more prevalent than superior streaks, 3-term negative consecutive sequences will give you hard times.

I'm asking if for "no betting back to back on the same table" you mean you make just a single bet per each shoe.

as. 

         

Quote from: Tomla on August 18, 2014, 11:01:40 PM
I bet towards chopping Asym ---And the way I read this its not betting on Banker streaks , just Player streaks.....To me it's a cool play if playing with a partner.. (I love partner play but it's like marriage difficult to do ))...both guys should win but if my style is in a temporary lull this would cover a bit of hurt

Hi Tomla!

I took your interesting point about  "partners" play... 

as.         

Practically the system dictates to bet toward the streaks' formation on both sides. Specifically, the 2+ streak Banker formation and the x streak P formation.

According to long statistical findings, this is one of the worst bet selection a player can make since the most common outcome, as already stated above and elsewhere, is the chopping mood, even on the Banker side.

Nevertheless, imo the idea is somewhat interesting about other features.

as.   

 



     

Bingo!

Despite we are using more complicated classifications, this is-more or less-the philosophy to beat the game.
No jokes.


as.

Quote from: Polemic on May 09, 2014, 12:23:09 PM
My opinion is that, although data derived from coin tossing studies might indeed have relevance to baccarat results, attempting to design a winning system based on trending (of which this approach is a variation) is an exercise in futility.  There is more concrete and practical data describing frequency of occurrence of the various strings or streaks (1's, 2's, 3's etc). Perhaps some sort of mechanical pattern capturing method combined with an effective money management approach to overcome the inevitable losses (from periodically occurring known nemesis sequences) might be the best approach to winning at baccarat. However, to win that way would require enormous focus, discipline and patience which most players are unable or unwilling to commit to the game.

Many baccarat players should print and hang up to the wall this post.

as. 

I genuinely appreciate your thoughts and we are sure you are a serious bac player and we'll keep in high regard what you wrote.

Anyway, if a player isn't able to explain why he/she should get a long term edge, we have to strongly dismiss every assumption.

To beat an EV- game, we players must demonstrate to get a long term edge, since we cannot lie to ourselves.
Hence, in our opinion, the more we'll play (in selected circumstances), the more we'll win.

In order to constantly win at baccarat, we'll have to set up a betting model where the long run help us. Hence, we must have observed that itlr our selected bets are EV+. Slightly, still EV+.

To get this "crazy" assumption, we had to run millions and millions shoes tests. Obviously we don't have to actually play millions of shoe in our mortal life, but we cannot skip the long term concept.

Let's put the issue in those terms: any "unintelligent" player might win per every 3-4 or even 10 sessions. Nobody or almost nobody can win in a 1000 sessions sample because the EV- edge will overcome any acutely pondered bet selection.

Therefore, any long term winning player  must show to the world why some bets are more profitable than others, itlr. A difficult thing to do.

as. 
   






   

   

Hi and thanks for your answer iplay.

Unlike to what you think, we are sure baccarat is a very complicated game. And to get a possible edge we are compelled to study many hidden "technical" aspects.

In our opinion a possible long term valid procedure must pass long series of pc tests, otherwise we are talking about fried air.
Moreover, we think a system must win itlr by a simple flat betting procedure. That's one of the easiest way to confirm a positive edge for the player. Secondarly, someone has to convince us why we should get this kind of edge by flat betting.

I tried to illustrate some points in my posts anyone might argue about, are you willing to give us more details about your winning approach?  Thanks!

as.   


 

Me too, I agree with every single point you listed.

But I have to ask: since 99% of players tend to follow trends, what other strategy do you use?

as.   

Post might be interesting for very subtle reasons, anyway I don't see why scoring "just" triplets can lead to a possible practical edge.
Which point of attack should we take?

Generally speaking, the more likely "closing" hand for any triplet (or any single disposition for that matter)is a Banker hand, still a too tiny amount to take advantage of.  And regarding these triplets "time" factor doesn't matter too much. 

Triplets are too small fragments to consider and they are totally exposed to the volatility typical of baccarat. Singletons and runs don't.

as.







 

 
   

Quote from: Sputnik on January 22, 2014, 01:18:52 PM

If i understand you correct so is AS game more common and we should take advantage out of this phenomena.
To illustrate this:

Asymmetric game ''....'.'....''..'''''.'...'.'''''''''..'''.'....''.'..''....'.'''''....''....'...'''.''...

Symmetric game ''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..''..

Is that what you aim at or did i misunderstand you ?

Yep, we must take advantage of the asymmetrical nature of the game, looking for "hidden" opportunities that most players don't care about. The key point is: "does the tiny asymmetricity lead to some advantages overwhelming the negative player's edge?".  The answer seems to be "yes".
I'll write some thoughts in a new post.
as.       

Hello Sputnik.
Maybe writing a completely new thread would be a better option, anyway I try to post my ideas.
The key point is to constantly remember that baccarat is an asymmetrical (AS) game. An AS game, expecially a slightly one, produces different results than other symmetrical games such as roulette. Yes, on the short run everything could happen, but in the long run some typical AS distributions prevail over the random world which characterizes symmetrical, then unbeatable games. I know this might appear a silly conclusion because there is always a tax to pay, but let's go on. 
A shoe (8 decks) produces about 75-80 results, separated into Banker hands and Player hands. These 75-80 results create one of the numerous possible dispositions caused by mathematical laws. Hence, after 2 hands we have 4 possibile dispositions, after 3 hands, the dispositions are 8, after 10 hands the dispositions are 1024 and so on up to the point when we'll reach the number of 75-80 hands. This remark is true if the game is perfectly symmetrical, since in an AS game it is obvious that dispositions which have the most number of Banker hands are more than the opposites. So, in the long run, we are certain that the numbers of the short sequence B-P-P-B-P-B, wherever taken, will be larger than the opposite sequence B-P-P-B-P-P. And this way of thinking will apply to every other kind of disposition because it is a mathematically hard fact. Naturally, shoes rich of Players hands contribute to invert the assumption just written and, of course, we players are subjected to pay a tax.
If we want to go more deeply in the process, we must take in account what are the more likely "fragment" dispositions a shoe will produce, but this time we complicate a bit the problem. Forgetting the total number of hands for each chance (and its gap), forgetting the number of chops or repeats (all events portrayed with huge variance), now what we should do is to predict what will be the most likely distribution of the possible dispositions. This is only a reflex of the asymmetricity that in the long run favors something to the detriment of something else and, good news, these facts are able to invert the negative house edge. According to our studies we found that the distribution of the possible dispositions plays a pivotal role in estimating what will mostly happen for every single shoe.   
as.